Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

This study has certainly caught my eye and could help propel us out of the stone age theory that continuous nonstop treatment with toxic drugs is the best way to manage hiv.For me using ART to boost cd4 counts into a safe range and then switching over to a immunotheraputic vaccine to maintain these counts over a 2 or 3 year period would certainly be a treatment milestone.I am betting the scientist and researchers get it right on this one.

From your signature I see you have achieved 22 months (so far) off combo - pretty much in the range of what this therapeutic vaccine will allow. So the question is: what does the vaccine bring to the table v normal treatment breaks? And what is it doing in terms of viral replication given that this promotes immune activation which we know is a BAD THING? These questions need to be answered, as do the long-term toxicity/side effects of (a) the vaccine itself (b) unsuppressed viral replication. When these are answered, and this kind of vaccine can deliver much more than your typical treatment break (as you are on) I will be impressed.

The cd4 stabilization program is a program being used by me and has led to virtually no loss in cd4 counts in the last 22 months.A much weaker and simplified version of this would probably be the program developed by Dr.Jon Kaiser called K-PAX.I originally started it as a way to gain body weight after going thru a 20 pound weight loss due to lipoatrophy and during that initial phase i noticed a return of health to a level i had not experienced in almost a decade.The program is complex and requires dedication due to the high pill volume.The correct use of amino acids,essential fatty acids,vitamins,minerals,trace minerals,antioxidants and herbs while metabolic windows are high is a important part of success.Many people would say that just because i have not experienced a decline in cd4 counts in 22 months is absolutely proof of nothing.I have tried to look at it from that point of view and even made attempts at going cold turkey and every single time i experience swift and significant declines in cd4 counts and health.I have given up on trying to disprove and am looking into ways to decrease the pill count while still being able to maintain cd4 stabilization.To get the full appreciation of this on a comparison scale please review the links below.

I am still trying to understand why my health is not declining as suggested by the % and viral load.Perhaps this is the russian roulette part of the deal and given enough time the immune decline will eventually clinically manifest itself as it previously did leading into June 2003.Also if you will notice that leading into June 2003 my % was approximately 24 and during that time my health was at its lowest with many of the classical symptoms of aids.Compare that to my current % which is 20 yet my level of health is at its highest to date. Can someone please explain this discrepancy?

So you're not factoring in the other numbers at all, to come up with when to resume treatment? That doesn't seem to be a very informed way to go about it. So the % could go down to, say, 14% and you'd not alter your opinion? Viral load to 600,000? etc.

I have had thoughts as far as resuming treatment but after experiencing the rejuvenation in health,appetite,energy,weight gain and improved quality of life during this treatment interuption, that thought quickly fades away.

I can appreciate bad experiences with meds after being on them for 15 years, but I also know that the new meds seem to be very strong yet remarkably side effect free, considering that I'm on the latest stuff and have been now for over 2 years. During that time I've also experienced a " rejuvenation in health,appetite,energy,weight gain and improved quality of life."

Keep in mind that anything between 20 and 14% is still touch and go. 14 is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'm assuming you know all of this though, but thought I'd add it for others that may be lurking on this thread.

Good luck.

ps: I see that you've been diagnosed for +20 years, but in your sig line with the first 2003 line it says "prehaart." Are you telling me that between 1987 and 2003 you took absolutely no HIV medication?

I'm also curious as to why someone on a doctor supervised treatment interruption (though I will assume that it's not something your doctor actually recommended) would only get lab work done on a 6-month basis, considering that you've had an HIV infection for +20 years. I don't even do that currently with vl=0 and cd4s +1300.

It's also somewhat clear from your sig line that you're current cd4 level is the result of HAART use that began in 2003, not any supplement use.

I started my first cycle of HAART in June 2003.I choose my bloodwork schedule based on what is convient for me.I was diagnosed in 1991 and seroconversion happened around 1986 or 1987.I am aware that the newest haart regimens have minimal side effects for most, but i also have chronic hepatitis B which results in my liver function being subpar.This makes me more susceptible to HAART toxicity.Also my last cycle of HAART was Sustiva and Truvada.The supplement use has allowed me to maintain my cd4 levels in the 400 range despite not being on HAART in the last 2 years.If i did not use the supplements during this 2 year treatment interuption my cd4 counts would be below 100 for sure.

it took 2500 years from the time of greeks to 1900s for man to learn to flyit took 500 years from the time of DiVinci to the first airplane for man to learn and understand how to flyit has been 28 years since hiv was discovered and 25 years since the head of Health for Fed govt under reagan said they would have a vaccine

but once one person figures out how to make a heavier than air plane then anyone can copy itwhat i think is happening now with all these peptide and vaccines and all the many many new paths in hiv research (read the last 200 posts on here) is that thefundamentals of hiv science which exploded in last 5 to 10 years, are now giving results and many scientists are using ideas of each other for new kinds of treatment, that is way my hope and actually the words used in mexico seem so so hopeful

HAART is the only thing that works now, and we must never take a break from haart but sooni hope to see real alternatives in vaccines, and gene therapy and other areas,

"may actually be describing non-specifictherapeutic effects related to the ability of siRNA to activate an immuneresponse" (peter this is just a blip in a huge nobel prizing winning revolution in science) it is like someone invented flight and peter finds a paper that says, but the wings dont have feathersit is s minor tiny issue in a revolutionary new ENTIRE branch of sciencethat has already won noble prize

"may actually be describing non-specifictherapeutic effects related to the ability of siRNA to activate an immuneresponse"

this means that siRNA activates an immuneresponse in a broader and more general way which is a good thing

remember science cannot explain how ANY vaccine works for any disease - for example, science knows that vaccines for polio, measles, etc work but they do not know exactly how at the level of the immune system in general or the trillions of molecules involved, they do not know how they work

we know that vaccines have been used in 2500 years ago in greece, and 4000 years ago in Egypt and they work, for non HIV diseases, but they did not know why exactly

also the Ice Man who was found frozen, he was what 3000 years old or so, 3300 he was carrying anti-botic plants or fungus which he had been eating, and he did not know why or how it got rid of hisinfections

Atlanta-based GeoVax Labs has a preventive vaccine candidate that it hopes to move into a large Phase II trial later this year, President Robert McNally says. The vaccine expresses three major HIV proteins in both a DNA prime and a modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) booster. In Phase I studies the vaccine has elicited both T-cell and antibody responses, McNally says.HVTN, the company's partner, has "taken a bit more conservative view," McNally says about whether to move ahead with trials. As of February, GeoVax believed its vaccine was only the fifth ever selected to move into Phase II trials. The company supports its work in part through a $15 million National Institutes of Health grant awarded in late 2007 and $10 million recently raised from investors."We have been approached by other agencies about proceeding into a therapeutic trial," McNally says. Vaccines would be given to already-infected people to generate an immune response to fight HIV. The idea is to reduce the need for daily oral medications and thereby more efficiently provide treatment and improve compliance. In animal studies, McNally says, GeoVax' vaccine performed therapeutically well against the SIV virus.Danish vaccine developer Bavarian Nordic has refocused its strategy to emphasize therapeutic HIV vaccines, Chief Scientific Officer Paul Chaplin says. In 2007, the company reported that its MVA vaccine encoding the HIV nef gene controlled viral replication in a Phase II trial. With the idea that one gene was good and more might be better, the company has begun a Phase I/II trial of an MVA-multiantigen vaccine that encodes eight of the nine HIV genes.MVA vectors don't seem to present the same problems as adenovirus vectors, Chaplin says, and they can generate strong immune responses without replication. Developers don't want to use replicating vectors for therapeutic applications and risk adverse events in immunocompromised patients, he explains.COMPARED WITH tests of a preventive vaccine, those for a therapeutic one will quickly show any effectiveness on HIV replication in infected people, Chaplin explains. Although Bavarian Nordic worked with HVTN on earlier candidates, it now is conducting trials on its own. It might look for support again for larger trials, Chaplin says. "But it is much easier to get funding after you've gotten proof of concept in the clinic," he adds.Both GeoVax and Bavarian Nordic are eager to advance their candidates. "It's debatable how valuable the animal models truly are, since some people have had very promising animal data but very poor clinical data," Chaplin says. "Our concept is to generate a broad T-cell response, and the only way to find that is to get into the clinic. Then, if you do generate that, you have to take a leap of faith and do a larger Phase III trial to see if it is actually efficacious."Leaders in the HIV field are calling for other leaps of faith and innovations. In Mexico City, Gates Foundation's Yamada described HIV-related projects being funded under the $100 million, five-year Gates Grand Challenges Explorations program started in late 2007. An extension of the Grand Challenges in Global Health initiative, this newer program targets smaller projects at an earlier stage.Calling it "venture capital for new ideas," Yamada said the program awards $100,000 for a selected idea in the first year, $1 million over the next two years for ideas that show promise, and even higher levels beyond that for truly novel ideas. The Gates Foundation expects to make about 60 awards during each round; the first proposal period ended in May.Ideas proposed in the HIV area included focusing on host antigens rather than on virus antigens, reducing immune responses rather than enhancing them, and promoting more mutations rather than fewer. "All these are really challenges to dogma, which can hopefully lead to really new ideas for HIV vaccines," Yamada added. Proposals are being accepted now for a second round.ALONG WITH a diversity of approaches, the HIV vaccine field is exploring other ways to keep its momentum. "We need to think of new ways of attracting and retaining young people," says Alan Bernstein, executive director of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. "A lot of people went into the field in the '80s, when the virus was first discovered, and a new generation needs to come on who are, by definition, young and very familiar with newer technologies that they can apply to vaccine development."We need to do more basic science, but we need to start applying all the latest tools in biomedical research and in neighboring fields, including chemistry," Bernstein continues. Major funders around the world are thinking about new programs and putting new resources on the table to stimulate more basic science. "I think you have to tailor the programs and the resources to what you want to accomplish, so first we need to have a good discussion about what actually needs to get done," he adds.Bernstein contends that recent events have highlighted the need for the vaccine enterprise, which serves as "a convener, neutral broker, and catalyst but doesn't fund any research." Proposed in 2003 and incubated within the Gates Foundation, the enterprise drafted a strategic plan in 2005 and received $20 million in Gates funding in 2007. In late 2007, it named Bernstein, founding president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, as its first head.